Yes i agree Profiguy. That's why I'm interested in trying a 4 way with two ne149's between the sb34 and d7608.
I'm halfway through making some test cabnets for this.
I'm impressed how good this current compromised 3 way sounds.
I'm halfway through making some test cabnets for this.
I'm impressed how good this current compromised 3 way sounds.
I use NE123W08 and NE225W08. I really have no complaints about the build quality or the sound. The only thing I fear is that the NEO magnet will not corrode over time. I hope they are well galvanized.
Here's an impedance measurement of both domes in an enclosure that Profiguy designed, I think it's around .35L? it's a perfect fit onto the magnet!
The above is fully stuffed(not tight) with rockwool and that's how I'm currently using them. The one below is one dome either full stuffed or half stuffed. Not sure what option would be better really. I could test more options.
Blue is half stuffed.
The above is fully stuffed(not tight) with rockwool and that's how I'm currently using them. The one below is one dome either full stuffed or half stuffed. Not sure what option would be better really. I could test more options.
Blue is half stuffed.
Here's something you could try. Add padding resistors to the tweeter. Off the top of my head, I'd suggest 10 ohms in parallel with the tweeter, and 2 ohms in series before the 10 ohm. This will smooth out the impedance. It helps with some tweeters and passive x-overs. I'm speculating that it might work in an active as well.
I agree 2 Ne149w's seems a little odd. My reasoning is i already have 4 of them and also they will help keep the tweeter height down vs one larger midbass. Also 2 of them should beat one ne180w.
I'll do it as a test first.
I'm currently still liking this as a 3 way with the sb34nrxl75-8 crossed at 400-500hz. It does very well.
I'll do it as a test first.
I'm currently still liking this as a 3 way with the sb34nrxl75-8 crossed at 400-500hz. It does very well.
many wisdom says best 3 way is 4 way, for me 4 way + stereo subwoofer is the best choice.
my current setup almost look like yours, 3 way Dyn MW152 as midrange with 160Hz xo. but on going to change that into 4 way with 3.5" midrange & 6.5" midbass.
my current setup almost look like yours, 3 way Dyn MW152 as midrange with 160Hz xo. but on going to change that into 4 way with 3.5" midrange & 6.5" midbass.
It is trade off. Only one if you don't need PA spll permits to have a good soundstage. According the filter slope you can with one driver handles 200 to 300 hz high pass and a low pass up to 2000 to 3000 Hz w/o too much problems according the complexity of the filter (some notch migth be mandatory (see Kurt Campbell work with this driver)
a 5" cone allows a good soundstage in an average livingroom and a wider passband than a 3' dome.
Now if more spl or less THD or if a different radiating patern is wanted -, you can use MTM or MMT in // or in 0.5 way filtering.
I personally would choose more MMT with simply the two 8 ohms // : less distorsion and lowered high pass. There is something good sounding with loudsppeakers having 150 hz circa high pass and >= 2000 hz low pass for the mids.
I personnaly have a good resolving loudspeaker with aluminium mid and tweeter covering acousticaly >100 hz bandwifth up to 20 Khz.
But agging, I 'd like to make today the opposit and comes back to papeer likes material for the mid (staying hard dome in the trebles though) : a little less details but more forgiving as most of the reccordings are mixed with such paper material at the end and many 16/44 materials are not always good.
So a 3 ways with 4 drivers, while the 4 ways could allow you subwoofer distributions.
My 2 cents, MMMV with time as high resolution speaker with hard cones/domes can be smooth to the ears too, but you need some EQ for the break ups and/or has a smooth good resolving DAC. I had to design a part of my ownn DAC analog stage to allow a complete vynil sound with the added dynamic and clearness of digital... Hifi is full of trade offs !
The little WMTM Barefoot (with 2 NE19W) is said no slouch with DSP and 3.5 waysfiltering (the MTM arrengment is physical, not the filter) or WMMT Joachim Gerhard last designs and we all know how good he can design loudspeakers :
https://suesskindaudio.de/en/ara
He is also making a loudspeaker with mid domes in a MMT arrengment :
https://suesskindaudio.de/en/kronos-2
Last edited:
I know a lot of people will claim a cone mid will be of sufficient resolution in its linear passband, but a dome has far better (isually more predictable) off axis radiation uniformity than a cone mid. The sensitivity is usually better as well. THD may look good on paper, but that doesn't always translate into better "sound" than a larger dome.
I have all the drivers mentioned in the build here (aside from the T25B, but own the T34B) and am familiar with them. The NE149W is an excellent driver overall but it doesn't match the D7608 in midrange resolution, clarity and soundstage.
Once you listen to a good mid dome, you won't want to go back to a cone mid. That's how it was for me when I tried multiple cone drivers as substitutes for 3 way designs, allowing for a lower xover using a larger LF driver. The SB34NRXL is no slouch in many ways and performs far above its price point compared to other paper cone LF drivers.
While you can approach the overall resolution, clarity and depth of a metal cone/diaphragm system, it will be harder to remove the influence of the breakup peaks in the upper mids. There are multiple ways metal cone breakup resonances can spoil the sound of a speaker system. Unless using a fully DSP based system, you'll have a hard time getting full (sufficient) control over the drivers in terms of resonance breakup areas.
I generally try to aim for 2:1 driver emissive diameter ratios in multi way systems. That means ie. 12" LF, 6" lower MF, 3" upper MF and 1.5" HF. Thats a theoretically optimum situation on paper, so you can use a smaller tweeter anf mid overall. It doesn't however allow for a near perfect harmonic breakup sidtribution using other drivers. I find that a 1" tweeter and 2" dome mid can open up alot more choices. The 2" Morel mid domes are excellent as well with tweeter choices. The MDM55, CAM558 and EM1308 are all excellent mids will very similar sound characteristics. I recommend using surface dampening treatment on the outer chamber surfaces of the mids.
With the D7608 (and help of the custom 3D printed rear chamber), this combo knocks out much of the competition in its price range. Only some of the very high end cone drivers can approach the overall performance, but not exceed it.
I have all the drivers mentioned in the build here (aside from the T25B, but own the T34B) and am familiar with them. The NE149W is an excellent driver overall but it doesn't match the D7608 in midrange resolution, clarity and soundstage.
Once you listen to a good mid dome, you won't want to go back to a cone mid. That's how it was for me when I tried multiple cone drivers as substitutes for 3 way designs, allowing for a lower xover using a larger LF driver. The SB34NRXL is no slouch in many ways and performs far above its price point compared to other paper cone LF drivers.
While you can approach the overall resolution, clarity and depth of a metal cone/diaphragm system, it will be harder to remove the influence of the breakup peaks in the upper mids. There are multiple ways metal cone breakup resonances can spoil the sound of a speaker system. Unless using a fully DSP based system, you'll have a hard time getting full (sufficient) control over the drivers in terms of resonance breakup areas.
I generally try to aim for 2:1 driver emissive diameter ratios in multi way systems. That means ie. 12" LF, 6" lower MF, 3" upper MF and 1.5" HF. Thats a theoretically optimum situation on paper, so you can use a smaller tweeter anf mid overall. It doesn't however allow for a near perfect harmonic breakup sidtribution using other drivers. I find that a 1" tweeter and 2" dome mid can open up alot more choices. The 2" Morel mid domes are excellent as well with tweeter choices. The MDM55, CAM558 and EM1308 are all excellent mids will very similar sound characteristics. I recommend using surface dampening treatment on the outer chamber surfaces of the mids.
With the D7608 (and help of the custom 3D printed rear chamber), this combo knocks out much of the competition in its price range. Only some of the very high end cone drivers can approach the overall performance, but not exceed it.
Last edited:
From a sensitivity side my dsp is 5dB less with the D7608 vs the ne149 to get exactly the same mid level.
I've fully covered the dome enclosures with car sound dampening.
I think one has to hear a dome in direct comparison to know what it does.
I like the ne149w alot. Befor them i had some scanspeak 15m/4624g mids but the ne149w was a good step up from those.
I also tried some 12mu's and those are very good but not a big step up or any step up from the ne149w imo well not for the money anyway.
The 15m's had what I would call a ring to them where as the ne149w is easy and relaxing with a way better more a realiistic lower midrange. The dome is more clean sounding, less colored, more detailed and has tighter imaging.
The only thing I fell I'm lacking is the lower mid detail/realism I had with the ne149w doing the lower midrange and that was with them crossed at 250 so maybe two of them crossed even a bit lower may be good.
I've fully covered the dome enclosures with car sound dampening.
I think one has to hear a dome in direct comparison to know what it does.
I like the ne149w alot. Befor them i had some scanspeak 15m/4624g mids but the ne149w was a good step up from those.
I also tried some 12mu's and those are very good but not a big step up or any step up from the ne149w imo well not for the money anyway.
The 15m's had what I would call a ring to them where as the ne149w is easy and relaxing with a way better more a realiistic lower midrange. The dome is more clean sounding, less colored, more detailed and has tighter imaging.
The only thing I fell I'm lacking is the lower mid detail/realism I had with the ne149w doing the lower midrange and that was with them crossed at 250 so maybe two of them crossed even a bit lower may be good.
Last edited:
@RaymondC Yes, to match a cone mid in lower mid capability, running 2 of them shaded is the way to go. This is given you can lower the HP sufficiently to get close to the cone mid's output capability. The D7608 isn't that capable in the excursion dept, but 2 of them are quite capable of satisfying most people in regards to volume capability.
Is the 5 dB better output for 2 or only 1 NE149W compared to the D7608?
Is the 5 dB better output for 2 or only 1 NE149W compared to the D7608?
Raymond,
I also have the D7608 w/o the faceplates. How is the dispersion up at your crossover point? Are you still crossing at 2.7KHz to the T25B?
I don't have the tweeters yet but I am considering the T25 (most probably not the B ver$ion) or an Audax/SB.
I have also concluded it is better to have 4 ways with the D7608. My plan us to investigate cardioid 80-600 Hz (like D&D or with rear woofer) with 8-10" driver(s).
I also have the D7608 w/o the faceplates. How is the dispersion up at your crossover point? Are you still crossing at 2.7KHz to the T25B?
I don't have the tweeters yet but I am considering the T25 (most probably not the B ver$ion) or an Audax/SB.
I have also concluded it is better to have 4 ways with the D7608. My plan us to investigate cardioid 80-600 Hz (like D&D or with rear woofer) with 8-10" driver(s).
This a quick measure I did tonight. Not precise angles but they range from 0deg to around 70deg with roughly an even angle in between.
Crossover is 2700khz LR2, mid hp is 500hz. Mic at 52cm from a point between mid and tweeter.
Blue = both mid and tweeter
Red = only tweeter
Green = only mid
I think the stock T25B grill mounted in the waveguide is causing a bit of roughness in the tweeter response from 4-6k up but it's a price I'm willing to pay. I want to make some grills for the mid domes as well.
I wish I could purchase 5" or more big domes. For I the more ways you have above the room shcroeder frequency, the more the design is difficult to do because of the added filters and off axis behavior too of more drivers. But with modern technic as DSP it could be simplier for sure.
Surprised no one has suggested a large lower mid between the SBA34 & the D7608. The b&c 8NDL51, for example, in a half cubic foot aperiodic enclosure similar to the spherical ones you made for the upper drivers in your original 3-way. SBA34 becomes a sub, 8NDL51 takes over to 600hz, and d7608 gets happier.
profiguy seems to like it a lot too. A major difference with your designs is he needs PA headroom if I understood it well : you design open baffle loudspeaker, not him. Could maybe influence drivers choices.... I dunno.
I personnaly try to understand what behavior is the best and if both can be mixed ib a loodspeaker as all have not experienced the same things on that forum.
For application, one can also be limited by the amount of monney involved (NE149We is perfect for my monney in the TCO of a loudspeaker) or skill for the enclosure.
Profiguy has not this limitation, his journey is more focussed on "what is the next best step".
sorry, off topic.
I personnaly try to understand what behavior is the best and if both can be mixed ib a loodspeaker as all have not experienced the same things on that forum.
For application, one can also be limited by the amount of monney involved (NE149We is perfect for my monney in the TCO of a loudspeaker) or skill for the enclosure.
Profiguy has not this limitation, his journey is more focussed on "what is the next best step".
sorry, off topic.
In this case, what I see is both the woofer & the mid dome stretched beyond their ideal bandwidth. 8NDL51's 7mm Xmax, 60-3000 Hz range, and 94 dB sensitivity are all excellent fit for the role I suggested.
@ 2k your graphs seem to show a more directive behaviour than the curves at HI-Fi Compass. This might have to do with the faceplate. The tweeter has a wider dispersion at XO (than the mid), so I wonder if a different waveguide for the D7608 could make a closer directivity match at XO.
Perhaps the mismatch is not even that detrimental.
As I said I also have the faceless version of the mid-dome. In hindsight I think I would have better bought the standard one (one less variable/task).
This was more or less implied in several comments. Even using something larger than an 8" makes a lot of sense. The 3" domes are light and dynamic, and the LM woofer should be able to cope with them. That's one of the reasons why using two 8" woofers has been often discussed alongside the mid-domes.
I find the 10"s from PHL and the Precision Devices PD.103NR1 (31g / 18 T/m) interesting — and there are many more 8" and 10" options as well. They often cost less than two 8" drivers.
What I’ve come to think is this: if you have an independent way exactly in the frequency range where a cardioid response is most beneficial (100-4/5/600), why not try to build it that way?